Posts Tagged ‘Jack Nicholson’

I lifted this from a previous recent post that had a slightly different point:

Joe Biden mocked a lot of things in his debate Thursday night. He mocked Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, of course. But he also began to grin like the village idiot pretty much every time Paul Ryan began an answer, as if to point out that the world’s most intolerant lunatics can’t emotionally handle a different opinion in any way, shape or form.

And it’s a classic comparison: I don’t know how Jack Torrance (Nicholson’s character in the movie) would have debated any differently than Biden if he wasn’t allowed to take his axe to the debate. In fact, I’ll bet Jack Torrance would have been slightly more polite than Joe Biden, and refrained from interrupting Paul Ryan 85 times the way Biden did.

I have a feeling that many women put themselves in Paul Ryan’s shoes and saw Joe Biden as an overbearing, domineering, patronizing rat bastard who would mock them and denigrate them and smirk while a woman was talking so that everybody would know he thought she was an idiot. And they didn’t like it. And that debate performance may hurt Obama more than a lot of people realize right now for the very reason that it emotionally turned off the very women voters that Obama is most counting upon.

A female Republican pollster on Huckabee’s program pointed out that Obama and Biden actually depicted the two kinds of men women most loathe: Obama as the passive, uncaring, uninvolved man who couldn’t even generate the emotional energy to manufacture a little bit of eye contact; and Biden as the overbearing, loutish, patronizing, dismissive blowhard.

Personally I’d rather see Jack Nicholson’s face mocking me from the side of the door he’d just smashed in with his axe. I mean, yes, Jack Nicholson in character would try to kill me; but Joe Biden in character would try to destroy me, my entire family, my way of life and my entire nation.

Some Democrat apologist said that she appreciated Biden’s performance because Joe interrupted Ryan every time Ryan stretched the truth. You know what I would have done if I’d been on that panel? I would have interrupted that idiot woman every time she spoke and said she was stretching the truth so I could interrupt her. Pretty soon, after being cut off – oh, I don’t know, for the eighty-fifth TIME – she would hopefully realize how vile the tactic that she applauded Biden for truly was. Because you know what? BOTH sides think the other side is lying – and if I act like Democrat Nazis and decide that I have a right to interrupt a liberal every single time I think they’re saying something that isn’t true, well, guess what: that Democrat will NEVER get to complete a damn sentence.

Morally intelligent people – and yes, I know, that excludes the entire universe of Democrats – understand that the purpose of a debate is for both sides to present their views, and for the AUDIENCE to get to decide who is lying and who is telling the damn truth. And that would have happened Wednesday night if liberalism didn’t equal fascism.

Joe Biden mocked a lot of things in his debate Thursday night. He mocked Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, of course. But he also began to grin like the village idiot pretty much every time Paul Ryan began an answer, as if to point out that the world’s most intolerant lunatics can’t emotionally handle a different opinion in any way, shape or form.

And it’s a classic comparison: I don’t know how Jack Torrance (Nicholson’s character in the movie) would have debated any differently than Biden if he wasn’t allowed to take his axe to the debate. In fact, I’ll bet Jack Torrance would have been slightly more polite than Joe Biden, and refrained from interrupting Paul Ryan 85 times the way Biden did.

I have a feeling that many women put themselves in Paul Ryan’s shoes and saw Joe Biden as an overbearing, domineering, patronizing rat bastard who would mock them and denigrate them and smirk while a woman was talking so that everybody would know he thought she was an idiot. And they didn’t like it. And that debate performance may hurt Obama more than a lot of people realize right now for the very reason that it emotionally turned off the very women voters that Obama is most counting upon.

A female Republican pollster on Huckabee’s program pointed out that Obama and Biden actually depicted the two kinds of men women most loathe: Obama as the passive, uncaring, uninvolved man who couldn’t even generate the emotional energy to manufacture a little bit of eye contact; and Biden as the overbearing, loutish, patronizing, dismissive blowhard.

That said, one of the things that Joe Biden mocked was Iran getting a nuclear weapon. It was frankly amazing how dismissive he was of what pretty much every expert in the field says is a frighteningly real possibility.

But those who dismiss Iran’s capability are as stupid as those who dismiss their resolve.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that an Iranian engineer has told a reported what we suspected: That they hijacked the drone and fooled it into landing in Iran. The fact that it landed intact seemed suspicious. But how could they have defeated the super power that spends more on it’s military than the rest of the world combined?

Simple: They jammed the control signals forcing it into autopilot mode, then overrode the GPS signals to fool it into landing in Iran.

Iranian electronic warfare specialists were able to cut off communications links of the American bat-wing RQ-170 Sentinel, says the engineer, who works for one of many Iranian military and civilian teams currently trying to unravel the drone’s stealth and intelligence secrets, and who could not be named for his safety.Using knowledge gleaned from previous downed American drones and a technique proudly claimed by Iranian commanders in September, the Iranian specialists then reconfigured the drone’s GPS coordinates to make it land in Iran at what the drone thought was its actual home base in Afghanistan.

The article goes on to say that the US will continue to fly over Iran. But based on this information it seems likely that future flights will meet a similar fate.

This seems like a huge vulnerability. Makes one wonder if a big chunk of our military budget has been wasted.

What you need to understand is the Obama administration talking heads and the intelligence and military brass that serve at Obama’s pleasure basically said at the time Obama lost one of his drones over Iran that there was no way in hell Iran had the capability to comandeer a drone and the thing must have crash landed.

US officials skeptical of Iran’s capabilities blame a malfunction, but so far can’t explain how Iran acquired the drone intact. One American analyst ridiculed Iran’s capability, telling Defense News that the loss was “like dropping a Ferrari into an ox-cart technology culture.”

Yet Iran’s claims to the contrary resonate more in light of new details about how it brought down the drone – and other markers that signal growing electronic expertise.

A former senior Iranian official who asked not to be named said: “There are a lot of human resources in Iran…. Iran is not like Pakistan.”

“Technologically, our distance from the Americans, the Zionists, and other advanced countries is not so far to make the downing of this plane seem like a dream for us … but it could be amazing for others,” deputy IRGC commander Gen. Hossein Salami said this week.

According to a European intelligence source, Iran shocked Western intelligence agencies in a previously unreported incident that took place sometime in the past two years, when it managed to “blind” a CIA spy satellite by “aiming a laser burst quite accurately.”

More recently, Iran was able to hack Google security certificates, says the engineer. In September, the Google accounts of 300,000 Iranians were made accessible by hackers. The targeted company said “circumstantial evidence” pointed to a “state-driven attack” coming from Iran, meant to snoop on users.

Well, guess what that “ox-cart technology culture” did with the Ferrari Obama gave them?

Now, if you are a complete and abject fool the way Joe Biden and Barack Obama are complete abject fools, then you will keep dreaming your naive fool’s dream that Iran is a bunch of technological retards who are actually being cowed out of their holy war by some stupid sanctions.

If you’ve got a functioning brain in your head, you won’t think that way at all.

Experts say Iran is very close to having a nuclear bomb, as USA Today back in November of LAST YEAR pointed out:

There’s time for stricter sanctions to get Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, but the Islamic republic is much closer to such weapons than previously believed and a military strike may be necessary, foreign policy experts say.

“With each time we have used sanctions, they’ve had more impact, but ultimately if Iran wants to pay the cost, it can get nuclear weapons,” says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The question is, can we raise the cost enough?”

Western diplomats and nuclear experts who reviewed intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program say Iran has continued work on nuclear weapons with the help of foreign scientists, despite sanctions organized by the Obama administration, a report in The Washington Post said.

Iran IS close to a nuclear weapon. And for Joe Biden to smirk and mock like the damned fool he is was just one of the numerous examples of Biden not only mocking, but doing so at incredibly inappropriate times.

I have pointed out REPEATEDLY that when Iran gets a nuclear bomb in will be ENTIRELYDemocrats’ faults and particularly Obama’s and Biden’s fault. You can go back to the 2008 debates for the Democrat presidential nomination and you can see every Democrat mocking George Bush for saying that Iran was a growing nuclear threat. They dismissed it and mocked it and cited a report that turned out to be completely false and Iran has been the little nuclear bomb-making engine that could on Obama’s watch.

Another development is almost as bad. When Iran gets the nuclear bomb – and if Obama is reelected I guarantee you that Iran will get the bomb – they will not have to use it directly to hurt us badly.

Once Iran becomes a nuclear power with the bomb and the means to deliver it, they will be off-limits to any kind of attack. It will be not only too late, but WAY too late to deal with the threat they pose. And one of the things they will be able to do is block the Strait of Hormuz – and send oil prices to $12 a gallon – with absolute impunity.

A new ‘smart missile’ threatens to tip the balance of power towards China, US military analysts say.

The latest generation of the Dong Feng 21D (DF-21D) [Photo] is a supercarrier killer according to experts on China’s armaments. The missile can be launched from land and strike an aircraft carrier 900 miles away.

China has 11,200 miles of coastline. That fact coupled with the range and accuracy of the new missile could spell doom for any US or allied carrier fleet.

Patrick Cronin, a senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program that is part of the Washington, DC Center for a New American Security organization admits the DF 21D is designed to kill carriers—specifically US Naval carriers. “The Navy has long had to fear carrier—killing capabilities. The emerging Chinese anti-ship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post—Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose.”

China and Iran are allies.

If we try to end a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, will we be surprised to find out that China has given Iran a few aircraft carrier killers?

Joe Biden smirked and mocked his way through the debate. But this is a terrifyingly real possibility that is no laughing matter to anybody but the most deluded of fools.

Unless Iran is told – AND UNLESS IRAN BELIEVES– that the United States will launch a massive military strike that will wipe out Iran’s nuclear capability and as many damned Iranians as get in the way of our wiping it out, they will soon have a nuclear bomb.

And you can read all about the war that the Bible told us would happen in the Book of Revelation.

Pictures of Obama as “the Joker” above the label “socialism” began popping up around the L.A. area.

Needless to say, liberal outrage was swift to follow.

It didn’t matter that liberals had already come up with the idea themselves to attack George Bush. Nor did it matter that this was the work of one anonymous person, versus the fact that the “Bush-as-Joker” project was created by a major mainstream media outlet in Vanity Fair.

The blatant hypocrisy in crying “FOUL!” over the picture of Obama as Joker never even enter into the liberal mindset that saw no problem in the picture of George Bush as the Joker. Hypocrisy is such a part of them – the very atmosphere they breathe – that they appear as completely unaware of their hypocrisy as a fish is unaware of the water around it.

Noel Shepperd at Newsbusters demonstrates the outrage from the mainstream media surrounding the “Obama-Joker” stunt that somehow never managed to materialize when a major media outlet portrayed Bush as Joker.

Oh, the OUTRAGE (pronounced in identical cadence to the “Oh, the HUMANITY” famously uttered by Herbert Morisson at the explosion of the Hindenburg):

Who could have missed the obvious anti-black racism of that role? No one I know, anyway. And, of course, when Jack Nicholson reprised the role in one of the more recent Batman movies, I remember everyone saying, “There they go with that racism again!”

I am now immunized from any charge of racism. I have a knee-jerk response: “That is a terribly racist thing of you to say, you racist bigot.” When charges of racism are unleashed like a flood, it simply turns into water flowing off a duck’s back. The real racists are the people who keep leveling the charge for partisan ideological effect.

I think my favorite pseudo-outraged piece by the pseudo-intellectual Lost Angeles Times is this one:

There’s nothing like a controversial political caricature to get people talking, blogging and tweeting.

But when it comes to understanding those same cartoons — as opposed to rehashing, reblogging and retweeting them — context is key.

The New Yorker magazine’s infamous cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama in radical drag, bumping fists in the Oval Office as an American flag burns in the fireplace, is understood to be a parody of conservative paranoia, not an attack on the first couple. But put that same image on the cover of the Weekly Standard and the illustration takes on a vastly different meaning.

In this respect, the image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise. The image seems to have emerged from nowhere and was created by no one. Deracinated from authorial intent, Obama-as-Joker becomes a free-floating cipher that can be appropriated and re-appropriated by everyone.

Clearly, the poster — which has already mutated into countless variations on the Internet — communicates a virulent hostility to Obama, but in a vague and flailing way. It can mean anything and it could mean nothing. (The latter seems more likely than the former.) In some versions of the image, the word “socialism” has been appended to the poster. But as media outlets like CNN have pointed out, the Joker (as portrayed by Ledger in “The Dark Knight”) was a rabid anarchist, which doesn’t jibe well with the accusation of socialism.

Like Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster, the mystery “artist” behind the Joker prank has borrowed and altered an existing media image of the president for his or her own creative ends. (It’s from a cover shot of Obama featured on Time magazine.) In many ways, the Obama-as-Joker picture can be viewed as the evil twin of Fairey’s “Hope” — one is laudatory and arguably hagiographic while the other is mean-spirited and demonic. Maybe one day, a publicity-savvy museum will mount the two of them side-by-side in an exhibition on the malleability of the digital image.

Understandably, some people have latched on to the poster’s white-face significance. Is the creator saying that the president is pretending to be someone he’s not? Again, it’s impossible to know for sure. The Joker was a garish parody of a clown, and a clown can be any race — the white makeup doesn’t necessarily have an ethnic subtext.

At one extreme, the poster suggests that Obama is a psychopath who is completely out of control and running afoul of the law — which he clearly is not. For a cartoon or parody to work, it must have at least one toe placed firmly in the realm of reality — a credible starting point from which to launch into the free-for-all ether of comedy.

The most that can be said about Obama-as-Joker is that it’s a prank that the Joker himself would have been proud of. It has exploded like a cultural grenade — an act of cultural terrorism? — and has left meaningless chaos in its wake.

— David Ng

First notice the complete omission of the Vanity Fair attack against Bush. Mentioning it would obliterate Ng’s thesis, so he simply doesn’t mention it. But isn’t the fact that it was done to Bush part of the overall “context” in understanding why it might be done to Obama? Why bother yourself with revealing something that would only serve to demonstrate how truly full of crap you are?

Then there is the reference to the New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle Obama “in radical drag.” It’s not the Obama’s we’re mocking, it’s conservatives. So it’s okay. You see, it’s perfectly acceptable to fabricate a straw man by which to mock and attack conservatives.

Whether Vanity Fair or the New Yorker, the point is the same: if you’re a Joseph Goebbels-modeled propagandist, as long as you’re not negatively depicting your fellow Nazis, pretty much anything goes. The left is always able to create a self-serving “context” to declare what is and is not in bounds. “Joker-Bush” is perfectly acceptable; “Joker-Obama” is immoral, dangerous, and racist. Says we.

Then there’s the dismissal of “Joker-Obama” on the grounds that Heath Ledger’s Joker was an anarchist – and Obama is clearly not. Let’s put aside the fact that “the Joker” has been around for a loooooooong time prior to the Heath Ledger movie role, and that it is frankly asanine to define the meaning of the Joker strictly within the Heath Ledger-created “context.” Let’s put aside that Cesar Romero’s Joker and Jack Nicholson’s Joker were just thugs (as in “Chicago thugs”) with an unusual pigmentation.

Was George Bush an anarchist? You see, that’s why any analysis that really wanted to take itself seriously needed to mention the Vanity Fair “Joker-Bush.” If Bush wasn’t an anarchist, and the left used the Joker anyway, then how is it somehow suddenly intellectually stupid for the right to use the same motif? Other than the fact that Goebbels never turned his propaganda against the Nazis? What about the simple playground rules that if you punch me in the mouth, I get to punch you back?

In any event, the Lost Angeles Times writer concludes that Obama as Joker “is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise.”

I’ve got two things to say to that.

First of all, it there is absolutely no related context, then why is everybody talking about it? Why didn’t they talk about Bush-as-Joker the same way? Good satire simply has to have some direct relationship with the object of the satire. And the closer to reality the satire comes, the more powerful it is. If there’s no connection, the joke is literally lost. So I would ask the Lost Angeles Times, why is it that some lone guy put up a poster of Obama as the socialist “Joker” that struck a powerful chord, while a giant magazine published a nationally distributed cover that failed to strike anything?

Joe the Plumber heard Obama talk about “spreading the wealth around” and responded by saying, “That sounds like socialism.” And Joe the Plumber was right: it DID sound like socialism because it WAS socialism.

The Obama campaign came out in a fury that he was not a socialist, and that his policies were not socialism.

Then after Obama won election, the leftist magazine Newsweek triumphantly exclaimed:

And Earl Ofari and David Ng want to tell us it is somehow “mean-spirited and dangerous” to simply state the truth?

We’re seeing what is being done with the “Joker-Obama” poster to what is being done with the “manufactured anger” over health care town hall meetings. Just as it was the left that FIRST attacked George Bush as “the Joker,” it was also the left that began using the tactics that liberals are ascribing to conservatives confronting Democrat politicians over health care. An article written back in 2001 records how the left would show up and simply shout down conservative speakers such as David Horowitz, Ward Connerly, Dinesh D’Souza, and many others. They weren’t even allowed to clear their throats before they were shouted down.

This is part of the larger category of how the left used to say “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” (usually erroneously attributing it to Thomas Jefferson) when Bush was president, only to depict conservatives as being obstructionist and immoral for protesting President Obama’s policies.

This tactic of blatant hypocrisy is only successful because the mainstream media are themselves major participants in that leftist hypocrisy.

Hopefully, by pointing out these blatant acts of mainstream media hypocrisy and pseudo-outrage, we can turn the spotlight of legitimate criticism on them, rather than on the false target of conservatives.